The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: R4 TrumPence on June 22, 2014, 04:21:20 pm
-
Paul blames Iraq crisis on Bush administration
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/210177-paul-blames-iraq-crisis-on-bush-administration
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday said he blames the current crisis in Iraq on those who backed the 2003 U.S. invasion, not President Obama.
Paul was asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether former Vice President Dick Cheney is a “credible critic” after he blasted Obama for his strategy for Iraq in an op-ed last week.
“I think the same questions could be asked of the same people who supported the Iraq war,” Paul said. “What’s going on now..I don’t blame President Obama. I blame the Iraq war and I blame the people who supported the Iraq war for emboldening Iran.”
The Bush administration didn’t understand and foresee that a civil war would break out, Paul said.
Unlike his Republican colleagues, Paul said he wanted the Iraq war to end. A number of GOP lawmakers have blamed the unraveling crisis in Iraq on Obama’s decision to pull all U.S. troops out in 2011.
Obama administration officials, however, have argued that it wasn’t that simple. The Iraqi government refused to sign a bilateral agreement that would allow a residual force to stay after 2011.
Cheney and his daughter, Liz, slammed Obama’s doctrine in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal last week, which received a significant amount of blowback.
“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” they wrote.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/210177-paul-blames-iraq-crisis-on-bush-administration#ixzz35NyQebyV
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
**nononono* **nononono* **nononono*
-
Well, adios Rand. You're just like your dumb-ass daddy.
We can't afford an isolationist in the White House, no matter his views on other issues.
-
We can't afford an isolationist in the White House, no matter his views on other issues.
Why?
-
Why?
He will get us all killed.
You think this trash in Iraq is going to leave us alone? You're very mistaken and misguided if you think that.
Rand Paul is a goofy libertarian at heart: pull up the drawbridge and the bad guys will stay away; open borders; sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.
I'm sorry I even considered him a viable presidential candidate.
-
He will get us all killed.
You think this trash in Iraq is going to leave us alone? You're very mistaken and misguided if you think that.
Rand Paul is a goofy libertarian at heart: pull up the drawbridge and the bad guys will stay away; open borders; sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.
I'm sorry I even considered him a viable presidential candidate.
People the world over hate the United States for a plethora of different reasons. We'll be no more vulnerable to terrorist attacks if we take an isolationist approach, and I'd even be willing to wager we'd probably be LESS vulnerable, because the world seeing us minding our own business will probably be good for our image. Nobody on Earth has what it takes to be a threat to us out in the open. All they can do is try to sneak attack us.
-
People the world over hate the United States for a plethora of different reasons. We'll be no more vulnerable to terrorist attacks if we take an isolationist approach, and I'd even be willing to wager we'd probably be LESS vulnerable, because the world seeing us minding our own business will probably be good for our image. Nobody on Earth has what it takes to be a threat to us out in the open. All they can do is try to sneak attack us.
We were minding our own business when guys with boxcutters killed 3000 Americans.
A couple of A-10s could have strafed that column of ISIS trucks traveling toward Baghdad a few days ago and sent a powerful message.
America as strong and powerful is the only image that serves our country's interests. We are now perceived as weak, aimless, and scared, which is why the aggressive are taking advantage of the bystanders.
-
We were minding our own business when guys with boxcutters killed 3000 Americans.
I would not go so far as to say we were minding our own business.
America as strong and powerful is the only image that serves our country's interests. We are now perceived as weak, aimless, and scared, which is why the aggressive are taking advantage of the bystanders.
The "Big and strong do whatever the bleep we want" image is exactly why a lot of terrorists hate us. Why are peaceful and non-aggressive countries not top priority targets for terrorism if they are just looking to feed on weakness? I disagree, and believe that there would be less hate for the U.S if we became more isolationist.
-
Why?
Because when you abdicate your position of world super power someone else will fill the vacuum. Essentially we have done that and russia and china are responding as predicted. Secondly, we also lose the ability to influence events that will affect us as is happening in the middle east.
-
Because when you abdicate your position of world super power someone else will fill the vacuum. Essentially we have done that and russia and china are responding as predicted. Secondly, we also lose the ability to influence events that will affect us as is happening in the middle east.
Becoming isolationist and focusing on strengthening the U.S from the inside will do a lot to help us retain our status as the world superpower, not that such an image actually matters.
-
Quite justifiably the US's citizens will increasingly be against further meddling among people that have battled each other for over 1200 years.
Americans didn't want to be involved in Europe in the late 1930s, after so recently shedding blood over there. They looked at history, of nearly perpetual wars in Europe.
We should have a lot of powder, keep it dry, but let the primitives kill each other off. It is about time for those who import oil, to pay the price with the lives of their young people-China, Japan, India, Korea, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports
-
I would not go so far as to say we were minding our own business.
The "Big and strong do whatever the bleep we want" image is exactly why a lot of terrorists hate us. Why are peaceful and non-aggressive countries not top priority targets for terrorism if they are just looking to feed on weakness? I disagree, and believe that there would be less hate for the U.S if we became more isolationist.
It doesn't matter if they hate us. It's more important they fear and respect us. The islamic goal to reform the world, by violent means if necessary, has nothing to do with their hate for us. Or more correctly, their hate for us has nothing to do with whether or not we are isolationists. Such naive thinking resembling that of the bozoo in the WH is what has created a mess.
-
We should have a lot of powder, keep it dry, but let the primitives kill each other off.
Exactly. If these people cannot be convinced to not destroy each other why is it our responsibility to try to stop them? It wastes our resources and makes certain groups of people hate us.
-
The "Big and strong do whatever the bleep we want" image is exactly why a lot of terrorists hate us. Why are peaceful and non-aggressive countries not top priority targets for terrorism if they are just looking to feed on weakness? I disagree, and believe that there would be less hate for the U.S if we became more isolationist.
Nah. Terrorists hate us because we're the big dogs on the block and will not ALLOW them to have the run of the rest of the world. Nobody gives a damn about Denmark because Denmark is a pipsqueak of a country.
We are weak and scared right now, due to the occupant of the Oval Office, but ISIS and all the rest of that rabble knows that, with a strong leader, they'd be crushed.
Our friends loved and respected us under GW Bush because they knew they could count on us, and our enemies feared us because they never knew when they'd be next. THAT is the proper role for the US in the world. Had we left a residual force of 10,000 soldiers in Iraq, none of this would be happening now.
-
It doesn't matter if they hate us. It's more important they fear and respect us. The islamic goal to reform the world, by violent means if necessary, has nothing to do with their hate for us. Or more correctly, their hate for us has nothing to do with whether or not we are isolationists. Such naive thinking resembling that of the bozoo in the WH is what has created a mess.
Further military action in the ME will not make people respect the strength of the U.S anymore than they already do. The entire world knows that we have the biggest baddest military and that nobody can touch us. The only attacks against us will be sneak attacks, and our military presence around the world only serves to increase the risk of such an attack.
-
Further military action in the ME will not make people respect the strength of the U.S anymore than they already do. The entire world knows that we have the biggest baddest military and that nobody can touch us. The only attacks against us will be sneak attacks, and our military presence around the world only serves to increase the risk of such an attack.
We could cease any and all involvement around the world and the attacks would continue until the US accepts Sharia law for all it's citizens
-
We were minding our own business when guys with boxcutters killed 3000 Americans.
A couple of A-10s could have strafed that column of ISIS trucks traveling toward Baghdad a few days ago and sent a powerful message.
America as strong and powerful is the only image that serves our country's interests. We are now perceived as weak, aimless, and scared, which is why the aggressive are taking advantage of the bystanders.
Also we tried isolationism in the 1930's and it failed big time..
-
Also we tried isolationism in the 1930's and it failed big time..
I'm not convinced our late entry was a "failure" if measured by loss of Americans lives and influence.
I think it was a strategic and tactical success.
I'm hearing Cheney, arguing for more training of the Iraqis, as if 11 years of training could prevent them from throwing down their arms, and running away from the battle.
Looking back, going to Iraq was a mistake. If we found the WMD, why didn't Bush and Cheney tell us--then or now?
-
Also we tried isolationism in the 1930's and it failed big time..
:thumbsup: to Kevin and Sink!
-
The apple doesn't fall from the tree. This isn't the first time Rand has spouted solid Libertarian viewpoints on American Isolationism and his objection to America's involvement in Iraq. But him blaming Bush for the firestorm in Iraq happening right now and giving Obama a pass, is way over the top.
-
The apple doesn't fall from the tree. This isn't the first time Rand has spouted solid Libertarian viewpoints on American Isolationism and his objection to America's involvement in Iraq. But him blaming Bush for the firestorm in Iraq happening right now and giving Obama a pass, is way over the top.
The original premise for going there belonged and belongs to Bush and Cheney. If that premise was wrong, then they own it.
I very much dislike Obama, but he is holding true to his 2008 campaign stand, of getting out of Iraq.
Training the Iraqi military is a joke. They put down their guns and ran from the enemy, nearly 11 years after we first went there.
If 11 years of training is not enough, more won't be either; yet more training being the premise of Cheney now, today.
That seems a lot like liberal spenders and their failed plans, claiming more money will work, when the entire plan is a failure, including the basic premise.
Sunnis and Shiites have killed each other for 1,200 years, since long before the vital flow of oil to the world.
Let somebody else hand their sons and daughters over to America's brilliant military generals and admirals, to protect that oil. The US should spend national treasure to be self-sufficient, not letting our military dies and get mangled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports
-
Iran was a peaceful more or less secular State until Carter decided to 'fix' it by inviting in the 'nice old religious guy' as Carter called the Ayatollah.
Afganistan has been a hellhole stone-age mess for 10,000 years. It was lunacy to think that America could bring them into the 20th century in one generation. They don't want it, and it will never happen. Maybe, in a hundred years or so.
Saddam was a brutal murderer and a ruthless dictator, but that is what it takes to control the barbarians. Again, it was lunacy to think we could modernize those animals.
Syria was stable until Obama decided to 'fix' it by arming the 'rebels', i.e., terrorist in an attempt to overthrow Assad and install his buddies in the MB.
Egypt was relatively calm and stable until Hussien decided to 'fix' it by overthrowing the government there and inviting in his buddies in the MB.
Libya was stable until Obama decided to 'fix' it and bring in his buddies in the MB, now it is terrorist ridden, chotic, lawless hellhole.
The point is that everytime America attempts to fix the M.E., things always get worse not better. I am not isolationist but rather simply practical. Based on our track record, it would likely be better for everyone if we just let them do what they do and have always done. We need to stop trying to save the M.E. from itself.
-
:thumbsup: to Kevin and Sink!
Dittos, here! :beer:
-
Well, adios Rand. You're just like your dumb-ass daddy.
We can't afford an isolationist in the White House, no matter his views on other issues.
Yep.
-
It doesn't matter if they hate us. It's more important they fear and respect us. The islamic goal to reform the world, by violent means if necessary, has nothing to do with their hate for us. Or more correctly, their hate for us has nothing to do with whether or not we are isolationists. Such naive thinking resembling that of the bozoo in the WH is what has created a mess.
Oderint, dum metuant. - Caligula
The motto of my son's unit during his second deployment to Iraq.
They don't fear or respect us now.
They're laughing at us.
Thanks, Obama.
-
I'm not convinced our late entry was a "failure" if measured by loss of Americans lives and influence.
I think it was a strategic and tactical success.
I'm hearing Cheney, arguing for more training of the Iraqis, as if 11 years of training could prevent them from throwing down their arms, and running away from the battle.
Looking back, going to Iraq was a mistake. If we found the WMD, why didn't Bush and Cheney tell us--then or now?
National security. As long as we had a military presence in Iraq, no one needed to know where the WMD were.
Now they're in the hands of militant crazies.
Thanks, Obama.
-
We never should have reduced the troop level so low in Iraq. This wouldn't have been happening if there were still a larger amount of troops there. Rand Paul is no different that his father. There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.
-
Rand can kiss his political aspirations goodbye. He's already come out for amnesty and this should finish him off completely.
-
We never should have reduced the troop level so low in Iraq. This wouldn't have been happening if there were still a larger amount of troops there. Rand Paul is no different that his father. There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.
That's because al-Qaeda's goal shifted after that. They went from attacks to the idea of bankrupting the country.
Between Obama's spending and the foolish notions of many even here that somehow we can spend our way to peace in our time, bin Laden is smiling in his nice spot in Hell knowing full well that his plan is working like a charm.
Meanwhile, as the late Paul Harvey put it, our best weapons are sitting in our silos, collecting rust.
-
Rand can kiss his political aspirations goodbye. He's already come out for amnesty and this should finish him off completely.
Oh, yeah, because that Iraq war was so politically popular.
Remember Rick Perry? Yeah, the same guy who killed his political future by suggesting going back to Iraq?
-
That's because al-Qaeda's goal shifted after that. They went from attacks to the idea of bankrupting the country.
Between Obama's spending and the foolish notions of many even here that somehow we can spend our way to peace in our time, bin Laden is smiling in his nice spot in Hell knowing full well that his plan is working like a charm.
Meanwhile, as the late Paul Harvey put it, our best weapons are sitting in our silos, collecting rust.
There have been attacks on Obama's watch. There were no attacks during W's presidency, because he did a better job domestically and abroad of fighting it.
-
There have been attacks on Obama's watch. There were no attacks during W's presidency, because he did a better job domestically and abroad of fighting it.
Yes. W scared our enemies, because they knew he'd react to any threat to our country or our allies, and we had the power to overcome them. They also know that 0bama won't do anything to retaliate. They have a free hand. All we can do is wait and see what they will do next.
-
we can debate here forever about what to do or not about Iraq. but first and foremost and there is no debate is we must protect americans that are in that country. We must not have another Benghazi.
-
we can debate here forever about what to do or not about Iraq. but first and foremost and there is no debate is we must protect americans that are in that country. We must not have another Benghazi.
:amen:
-
He will get us all killed.
You think this trash in Iraq is going to leave us alone? You're very mistaken and misguided if you think that.
Rand Paul is a goofy libertarian at heart: pull up the drawbridge and the bad guys will stay away; open borders; sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.
I'm sorry I even considered him a viable presidential candidate.
:amen:
-
Pretty stupid thing for Rand Paul to say. You can't point to the omelet and say that it only got that way because of the first few wisks of the egg but not the last few.
-
Pretty stupid thing for Rand Paul to say. You can't point to the omelet and say that it only got that way because of the first few wisks of the egg but not the last few.
In addition, when Bush left office Iraq was under control.
It has only become 'an omelet' since Obama was elected.
Rand Paul is a fool to say that what is going on now is Bush's fault.
He's just shamelessly trying to get the votes of those he perceives to be 'independent,' and is risking losing the base.
Because, no matter what you think in retrospect about Iraq. everyone with a functioning brain cell knows we were safer when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were at the helm.
I repeat. Rand Paul is a fool to say this.
-
There have been attacks on Obama's watch.
There wasn't one attack on U.S. soil after 9/11 on Bush's watch.
Apples to apples, this is untrue.
If you count overseas U.S. interests, they happened under both Presidents.
If you count only the 50 states, unless I am living under a rock or something, I know of no notable Islamic terrorist attacks here in the USA that have happened between 9/11 and now, and that includes Obama's tenure.
-
Apples to apples, this is untrue.
If you count overseas U.S. interests, they happened under both Presidents.
If you count only the 50 states, unless I am living under a rock or something, I know of no notable Islamic terrorist attacks here in the USA that have happened between 9/11 and now, and that includes Obama's tenure.
Who was President when Fort Hood occurred?
-
Who was President when Fort Hood occurred?
"Fort Hood" was not an outside attack on the general population.
-
"Fort Hood" was not an outside attack on the general population.
Then we can say the Cole wasn't really terrorism either?
-
One of my pet peeves, with both the Bush and Obama administrations is that the minute some violent event happens - they rush out and say that they don't know why it happened, but they've already ruled out terrorism! I believe we have been victim to terrorist attacks since 9/11 (obviously on a smaller scale) - but if you don't call it terrorism, then it's not. :shrug:
Actually, there have been many terrorist attempts such as the shoe and underwear bombers, etc. Some were successful, others not. It's clear that we've gotten pretty good and stopping them - but the cost has been great. How many freedoms have we lost in the process? We get groped at the airport, we get eavesdropped on our every communication - in this way - our enemy has scored a huge victory.
I think Rand Paul is wrong on this, what is happening in Iraq is Obama's fault - but I have always maintained that the reason we even have a President Obama is because George Bush failed to leave a legacy that Republicans could build another victory on. With Cheney, there was no logical successor to the White House to vote for, the media's relentless attacks on everything Bush did went undefended and are now accepted as fact by the majority of Americans.
I found this article by the Heritage Foundation that lists 50 Terror Attacks Foiled since 9/11 - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/fifty-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-the-homegrown-threat-and-the-long-war-on-terrorism - "Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism"
I don't think the Boston Marathon bombing is even included in this listing - but the point is that they sure haven't stopped TRYING to attack us, just haven't been able to carry out anything like 9/11. They are still trying. Now, they are just infiltrating the White House - I call that a terrorist attack, but that's just my opinion. Just because we refuse to call something an attempted terrorist attack doesn't mean it isn't. The Fort Hood incident is called "Workplace Violence" - so there, that's better, isn't it?
-
Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.
-
The world was obviously safer at the end of the Cold War, because American was perceived to be powerful, determined, and would without question use its military might to squash threats. When Gaddafi was threatening our ships and planes nearing the Gulf of Sidra, military brass asked Reagan if Libyan jets fire on our Navy planes should they be pursued? Reagan responded, “All the way back to the hanger”. You know the rest of that story. We felt safer, the World felt safer. And why? Because America could not be pushed around. It was only after Obama came into office that we showed the World we could be pushed around. This “leading from behind” is not working and is tearing down every thing Reagan, and the Bush’s and I will even say Clinton built. The credibility of the United States is in question. Obama’s failure to follow through on threats he makes like the “red line” reverberated all around the globe sending the message America is weak, and America is unreliable. It can also be argued that the Islamofascism has spread like wildfire under not Bush’s watch, but Obama’s.
So Rand, and those here that agree with him can spout all you want that this civil war is Bush’s fault. But ask yourself, would there even be a Iraq civil war, if militants on either side of this war feared us?
-
The world was obviously safer at the end of the Cold War, because American was perceived to be powerful, determined, and would without question use its military might to squash threats. When Gaddafi was threatening our ships and planes nearing the Gulf of Sidra, military brass asked Reagan if Libyan jets fire on our Navy planes should they be pursued? Reagan responded, “All the way back to the hanger”. You know the rest of that story. We felt safer, the World felt safer. And why? Because America could not be pushed around. It was only after Obama came into office that we showed the World we could be pushed around. This “leading from behind” is not working and is tearing down every thing Reagan, and the Bush’s and I will even say Clinton built. The credibility of the United States is in question. Obama’s failure to follow through on threats he makes like the “red line” reverberated all around the globe sending the message America is weak, and America is unreliable. It can also be argued that the Islamofascism has spread like wildfire under not Bush’s watch, but Obama’s.
So Rand, and those here that agree with him can spout all you want that this civil war is Bush’s fault. But ask yourself, would there even be a Iraq civil war, if militants on either side of this war feared us?
I think Islamofascism has been growing for quite some time and has now reached a point where they are on the verge of global victory- and their supreme achievement of taking the US down from the inside-out. I love Reagan, but my brother was in the Navy when our Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed and he is still mad that Reagan didn't go after who did that. They've been hating on us for a long time now and have had many successful attacks - not all of them have been paid back in kind.
We've seen this gorilla growing since it was a baby and now we have an 800lb gorilla in the middle of the room that we all have to walk around and act like it isn't there. These attacks have happened under every president's watch - the difference now with Obama is that we switched sides. We're now training and arming the guys that hate us - OPENLY - Senator John McCain had his picture taken with some of them!
-
Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.
It's all about intent.
-
Depends if you want to count only the terrorist attacks aimed at 0.055% of the entire population.
It's all about intent.
You can strike terror in many small events just as you can with one megolithic event. In fact, just plan to have a huge one every decade or two and the small ones will instill just as much terror. This is very effective.
-
It's all about intent.
I agree. Though I don't particularly care about specific targets. American, English, Russian, Indian, Thai - it makes no difference to me who gets targeted. Results count.
Ever wondered why Canada never gets a terrorist attack, despite fairly open borders and an almost pathological level of politeness? They have a dedicated counter terrorist unit that make the SEALS look like young and inept girl scouts. Even a hint of an attack on Canadian soil or interests, and he terrorists will be removed with extreme prejudice, including anyone aiding and abetting in the attack.
The only way to deal with terror tactics is make them more scared of you than you are of them. Obama is unwilling to do that.
-
I love Reagan, but my brother was in the Navy when our Marine barracks in Lebanon were bombed and he is still mad that Reagan didn't go after who did that.
That happened in 1983 just after I left the Navy and I shared your brother's sentiments that we didn’t punish them enough, and that the war against Islamic extremist should have began in 1883 not 2001. But please don’t believe the Liberal lie that Reagan did nothing. Do you not remember the battleship New Jersey hurling 1,900-pound shells at Syrian antiaircraft positions? This was the first time those guns were fired in battle since the Vietnam War. She was off the coast for several months and then replaced by the Iowa. We used a battleships to cover the marine withdrawal and the libs complained that using a battleship was leaving the wrong impression. It sure left a great impression on the Syrian gun positions, not to mention a Soviet General and his staff that was visiting one of these artillery spotting position. Not enough left of them to fill a garbage pail and of course the liberals in congress cried about that too.
-
That happened in 1983 just after I left the Navy and I shared your brother's sentiments that we didn’t punish them enough, and that the war against Islamic extremist should have began in 1883 not 2001. But please don’t believe the Liberal lie that Reagan did nothing. Do you not remember the battleship New Jersey hurling 1,900-pound shells at Syrian antiaircraft positions? This was the first time those guns were fired in battle since the Vietnam War. She was off the coast for several months and then replaced by the Iowa. We used a battleships to cover the marine withdrawal and the libs complained that using a battleship was leaving the wrong impression. It sure left a great impression on the Syrian gun positions, not to mention a Soviet General and his staff that was visiting one of these artillery spotting position. Not enough left of them to fill a garbage pail and of course the liberals in congress cried about that too.
I agree with you Navy and have had this discussion many times with my brother. When you evaluate the overall context of the Reagan presidency, he is one of the best. But that incident does show that even with Reagan, we were still attacked. Like I said, I don't agree with Paul's statement - this ISIS thing is Obama's baby. But we have been mishandling the Islamofascists for a long time. What we are doing is not working.
-
You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.
-
You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.
:amen:
-
You can nuance all you want, Fort Hood was muslim terrorism.
Muslim violence, yes, if only because the perpetrator happened to be a Muslim.
Yet a similar (and smaller) incident happened five years later, and Ivan Lopez was no Muslim. Hasan's (earlier) act had more in common with domestic shooting sprees like Sandy Hook than it did with anything al-Qaeda has done.
-
Muslim violence, yes, if only because the perpetrator happened to be a Muslim.
Yet a similar (and smaller) incident happened five years later, and Ivan Lopez was no Muslim. Hasan's (earlier) act had more in common with domestic shooting sprees like Sandy Hook than it did with anything al-Qaeda has done.
hmmm...I'm not sure what point we're making here, if there is one.
Fort Hood was muslim terrorism. There are other acts of extreme violence which are not muslim terrorism but just as deadly. The Boston bombings, we could go on.
The best thing I can say about the past decade since 9-11 is that we've been lucky, and we haven't been nuked......yet.
-
xfreeper wrote above:
[[ We could cease any and all involvement around the world and the attacks would continue until the US accepts Sharia law for all it's citizens ]]
You have it right, sir.
Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.
Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".
Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.
BOTH of the above approaches are ridiculous and ignore the reality of islam.
The jihadis don't care who is in charge of the "nations" of the Mideast. They are ALWAYS going to hate us, because we are who we are. "Who we are," are the infidels, living in dar al-harb. And the entire purpose of islam is to overcome dar al-harb and transform it into dar al-islam. (Aside: for all you folks reading this, if those two terms confuse you, you'd better look them up.)
dar al-islam is in a fight to the finish with dar al-harb. The only problem here (for us, that is) is that dar al-harb doesn't even seem to understand or grasp the nature, the existentiality, of this struggle.
Someday, perhaps when the jihadis finally get their hands on a nuclear device or two, The West may wake up. But by then, it may be too late.
Could this struggle be ended? Yes, I believe -- with two weapons, one each deployed against two cities. I sense that the time may come when they will have to be used. It may be The West's last chance....
-
The original premise for going there belonged and belongs to Bush and Cheney. If that premise was wrong, then they own it.
I very much dislike Obama, but he is holding true to his 2008 campaign stand, of getting out of Iraq.
Training the Iraqi military is a joke. They put down their guns and ran from the enemy, nearly 11 years after we first went there.
If 11 years of training is not enough, more won't be either; yet more training being the premise of Cheney now, today.
That seems a lot like liberal spenders and their failed plans, claiming more money will work, when the entire plan is a failure, including the basic premise.
Sunnis and Shiites have killed each other for 1,200 years, since long before the vital flow of oil to the world.
Let somebody else hand their sons and daughters over to America's brilliant military generals and admirals, to protect that oil. The US should spend national treasure to be self-sufficient, not letting our military dies and get mangled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_imports
:amen:
It is so difficult to have an intelligent discussion when people highjack the meaning of words. For instance:
i·so·la·tion·ism [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-] Show IPA
noun
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
WORDS MEAN THINGS.
IMHO.
Does Rand Paul want to isolate our country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc ? NO
Does Rand Paul want to seek to devote the ENTIRE efforts of our country to our own advancement? NO, make it a priority? Yes.
Does Rand Paul want to remain at peace? YES! So do I. No more arms to terrorists. No more proxy wars. No more nation building. No more world policeman.
Does Rand Paul want to avoid foreign entanglements? In most cases yes. You would have to define "entanglements".
Does Rand Paul want to avoid foreign responsibilities? No. We will honor our responsibilities. We should limit them as much as possible in the future.
Isolationist? NO
Isolationist tendencies? I could agree with that. America first? Definitely! Develop our own energy on a massive scale so we can create jobs, boost our economy, stop giving billions to terrorists and actually EXPORT energy? Paramount!
-
* * *
Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.
Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".
Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.
* * *
with that I wholeheartedly agree.
-
Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.
Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".
Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.
* * *
with that I wholeheartedly agree.
* * *
I disagree with everything said about Bush's strategy EXCEPT building a democracy.
These people have no concept of a democracy and without the security of a major overseer, it could never be allowed to develop.
-
The Democracy we tried to build was doomed to fail because Democracy only works if the people are willing to defend it, and they weren't. You can't force your idealism on another group of people and expect them to uphold that idealism after you leave. The decision needs to be their own.
-
Both G.W. Bush -and- Rand Paul are wrong.
Bush was wrong because he (and his advisors, and most Republicans) believed that we could go into Iraq, topple Saddam, hold a "free" election, "rebuild" the nation into a "democracy", and then we would be "safe".
Rand Paul is wrong because he believes that if we just withdrew from the Middle East and left them alone, they would stop hating us, and the terrorists would stop their jihad.
* * *
with that I wholeheartedly agree.
* * *
I disagree with everything said about Bush's strategy EXCEPT building a democracy.
These people have no concept of a democracy and without the security of a major overseer, it could never be allowed to develop.
It was based on the concept that every human being yearns for freedom.
In retrospect, it seems a bit naïve, knowing that given every opportunity to create a democratic government, the Iraqis failed.
But I still think that the majority of the Iraqi people DO long for freedom and individual choice.
Though I may be in the minority here. I believe what I do based on our son's year-long experience in talking one on one to individual Iraqis who did long for freedom, and appreciated the presence of the US military there to help them achieve it.
Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME.
-
"Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME."
Spot on.
Everyone walks around with a firecracker up their butt and they all walk around with lighters.
Crude analogy but I think it sums things up pretty well for the ME.
-
I think everyone yearns for the freedom to raise their family the way they want, work for a living making a decent return, go to church, maybe own a herd of goats, etc...
BUT...
not everyone wants democracy.
Look at Americans. We have it, it's been given to us by the blood and sacrifice of our fathers and we're throwing it away.
-
I think everyone yearns for the freedom to raise their family the way they want, work for a living making a decent return, go to church, maybe own a herd of goats, etc...
BUT...
not everyone wants democracy.
Look at Americans. We have it, it's been given to us by the blood and sacrifice of our fathers and we're throwing it away.
Really, REALLY good point, evad.
Without the brilliance of our Founders, democracy would not exist anywhere.
And here we are.
Throwing it down the toilet.
**nononono*
-
"Without the brilliance of our Founders, democracy would not exist anywhere."
Now THAT is a really, really, really good point!
-
It was the British, actually, who are "to blame" for the existence of democracy.
-
It was the British, actually, who are "to blame" for the existence of democracy.
In a manner of speaking.
But they still had a monarchy and some pretty hefty classism, and not the representative Republic that the Founders created.
-
"Again, in retrospect, I believe there is too much entrenched corruption and hatred for Sunnis/Shias/whoever for it to ever really work in the ME."
Spot on.
Everyone walks around with a firecracker up their butt and they all walk around with lighters.
Crude analogy but I think it sums things up pretty well for the ME.
The analogy may be slightly crude, but it's 1000% accurate.
-
The analogy may be slightly crude, but it's 1000% accurate.
Isn't that the reason the Ba-ath Party (Saddam Hussein) seized control of the country in the 'first' place?
'first', meaning they've been killing one another for over a thousand years.
-
Isn't that the reason the Ba-ath Party (Saddam Hussein) seized control of the country in the 'first' place?
'first', meaning they've been killing one another for over a thousand years.
You know - I really don't know.
I know that the "official" line is a load of BS about how Saddam came to power. Dark hints about outside involvement (which usually is taken to mean the USA (read CIA) in some way or another, and rather believable) if you listen between the lines, and a few comments that would make Idi Amin feel like a piker, but mostly people just say "He saw his chance and took it."
Even now, no one wants to talk about him, it's one of the taboo topics. It is strange. An entire country actively repressing it's last 30 years of history. It's like Germany in the 70's - "Holocaust? What's that?"